Methanol capital cost

Future Methanol Processes. The process route for methanol synthesis has remained basically unchanged since its inception by BASF in 1923. The principal developments have been in catalyst formulation to increase productivity and selectivity, and in process plant integration to improve output and energy efficiency while decreasing capital cost. 

The high capital cost, about 1500/kW, is the principal deterrent to growth of the IGCC concept. The abiUty to remove up to 99% of the sulfur species from the combustion products make the IGCC an environmentally desirable option as make calcium carbide (see Carbides), from which acetjiene is made. Synthesis gas for methanol and ammonia production is also made from gasification of coke. 

Methanol dehydrogenation to ethylene and propylene. In some remote ioca-tions, transportation costs become very important. Moving ethane is almost out of the question. Hauling propane for feed or ethylene itself in pressurized or supercooled vessels is expensive. Moving naphtha or gas oil as feed requires that an expensive olefins plant with unwanted by-products be built. So what s a company to do if they need an olefins-based industry at a remote site One solution that has been commercialized is the dehydrogenation of methanol to ethylene and propylene. While it may seem like paddling upstream, the transportation costs to get the feeds to the remote sites plus the capital costs of the plant make the economics of ethylene and its derivatives okay. 

This work also suggests other research and development directions needed to bring the price of ethanol down to an automotive fuel level. We need a lower capital cost hydrolysis process which can produce a concentrated sugar solution. We also need a fermentation process adaptable to concentrated sugar solutions to lower alcohol purification costs. Finally we need to recover and include by-product values - lignin, furfural, acids, methanol, etc. -in our income. 

Methanol production is not a "capital intensive" process as compared to other synfuel production systems. Fixed capital cost is between US 0.21 and 0.35 per liter/year of installed capacity. This investment cost is similar to that needed for ethanol production in Brazil. 

Capital costs should be added to these costs, calculated for an amortization period of 20 years, 10% yearly interest, annual production of 300,000 t of methanol (plant service factor = 82%), as indicated below ... 

A few ammonia plants have been located where a hydrogen off-gas stream is available from a nearby methanol or ethylene operation (e.g., Canadian plants at Kitimat, BC and Joffre, Alberta). Gas consumption at such operations range from 25 million to 27 million BTU per tonne of ammonia, depending on specific circumstances. Perhaps more important, the capital cost of such a plant is only about 50% of the cost of a conventional plant of similar capacity because only the synthesis portion of the ammonia plant is required. However, by-product carbon dioxide is not produced and downstream urea production is therefore not possible56. 

Future Emphasis on Reliability and Capital Cost. We believe emphasis in methanol plant design will turn to reliability and capital cost. 

We believe the next phase of development of the LP methanol process will relate to reduction in capital costs. This will become particularly significant as plant sizes increase. ICI is dedicated to continued further development of its catalyst to improve activity and life. This will lead to a reduction in the reactor size and catalyst volume and, consequently, to a reduction in capital cost. 

The currently available processes for natural gas utilization are shown in Figure 12.1. While conversion of gas to methanol and ammonia has been commercially practiced for decades, the demand for these products is small compared with the overall supply of remote gas. The liquefaction of natural gas to LNG can allow the transport of gas over long distances, but the capital costs for both the on-shore liquefaction and re-vaporization facilities and the cryogenic... 

For methanol, three scenarios are considered two large scale gas plants and one from coal. The estimate is made for the production of AA grade which is not usually necessary for the conversion to olefins. This may save a modest amount (5%) of the capital cost. The statistics are given in Table 11.5. 

A typical world scale plant produces 850 kt/y (2,500 t/d) methanol and requires about 32 PJ/y of gas . Typical construction period is three years with a lifetime of 15 years. Recently, some plants have been constructed at double this capacity (5,000 t/d) and claim much reduced capital costs, which is detailed in the second column. However, although economy of scale applies, some of the reduction in capital claimed probably comes from importing oxygen into the complex to run an auto-thermal gasifier. The coal case produces about 1.4 million tonnes of methanol and is based on the optimum size of an entrained-bed gasifier and requires 45PJ (about 1.8 million tonnes) of black coal. The coal option produces by-products of sulphur, ash and electricity. The fixed variable relationship plotted in Figure 11.9. 

The fixed variable relationship for the conversion of methanol into olefins using the statistics shown in Table 11.6 is shown in Figure 11.10. The analysis is based on a capital cost of for the methanol to olefin step of 300 million (2007). 

AH costs are given in Deutschmark (1 DM = 0.56 US- Aug. 1997). The costs are mainly determined by the energy input and the capital costs of the production plants. For both vectors it was assumed that hydroelectricity is available at 0.05 DM/kWh and 8,300 h/a. Capital costs are calculated on a real interest rate of 8% and depreciation periods (usually 15 years power station 20 years) correspond to about 50% of the expected technical lifetime of the plants. The plant capacity was calculated to produce about 200 tons of methanol per day. It is assumed that no additional costs for a MlOO car are necessary in a series production compared to a conventional gasoline car. Further assunq)tions were mainly taken from Ref.[l]. 

These figures may appear to be daunting economic goals for biomass not to be restricted to essentially captive use within the present biomass industries. An opportunity cost of 3.84 /GJ coupled to a 40% efficient process constrains the capital cost to 1.5 k /TJ/annum output capacity. Only the densified biomass option coupled with gasifiers at the point of use can meet this cost criterion allowing that there will be prepared fuel transportation costs. If the liquid fuel opportunity cost of 5.49 is used then the capital cost for the conversion has to be less than 7.9 k /TJ/annum output capacity. Allowing that the usual scaling law of an exponent to the 0.7 power is likely to apply to methanol plants for example then a 4000 tpd plant would be feasible. 

Such complimentary synthesis routes or "HYBRIDS can achieve remarkable reductions in capital cost and expensive biomass carbon utilisation. The methane and wood hybrid to produce methanol from the resulting syn-gas would use 722 nr of natural gas and 0.4 tonne of biomass to produce 1 tonne of methanol at a capital cost of around 10 k /TJ/annum capacity on the 1000 tpd product scale. Though part of the feedstock is then priced at the international oil price (energy equivalent) a plant scale of 3000 tpd operating at 60 per cent efficiency will meet the economic criteria of the simple model used in this paper. 

---